On Wed 2009-09-09 22:21:56, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> It seems > >> > >> 1) sync() (probabry "sync" command) > >> 2) sync as part of suspend sequence > >> 3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event > >> > >> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not > >> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to > >> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch. > > > > MMC driver trying to synchronize filesystems looks like ugly layering > > violation to me. Why are we doing that? > > There is no _layering violation_ here. IIRC, mmc just tells card removed > event to another layer (on some points of view, to tell event can be > wrong though). The partition (block) layer does it by event. So what is the problem? Emulating sync when card is already removed seems little ... interesting? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
